Joined: June 2006
Every single sentence above is fallacious. That has to be some kind of record.
|The God of the Gaps argument is really a clever way of saying God does not exist. It is atheism dressed up in a cheap tuxedo to use a cliché. Science that evokes this argument is essentially endorsing atheism.|
It assumes there is no God or if One exists, then the God never intervened at all in our universe. Which essentially eliminates this God from having anything to do with us.
Otherwise, if the God existed and did intervene in just one little thing, then that intervention would mean that there was something that could not possibly be explained by naturalistic causes and would refute the objections of those who use this argument. Hence, uses of it is tantamount to proposing atheism as the truth.
This is the one thing jerry gets right. "God of the gaps" is, in fact, an argument from ignorance. Too bad he doesn't realize it's a fallacy.
|Is this argument any different than the “argument from ignorance” claims that many evolutionists use to attack those who object to some aspects of evolution?|
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot